Writing my post earlier this week reminded me of another useful business theory that I hadn’t yet discussed in this weblog. The ”theory of action” proposed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schön way back in 1974 explores the difference between what people say they value and what their actions suggest they value. The two can be quite far apart.
From this overview of Argyris’ work:
When someone is asked how he would behave under certain circumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action for that situation. This is the theory of action to which he gives allegiance, and which, upon request, he communicates to others. However, the theory that actually governs his actions is this theory-in-use. (Argyris and Schön 1974: 6-7)
For many of his observed subjects, Argyris found, the theory-in-use was quite similar: a desire to ‘win’ or to not be embarrased, to avoid conflict, to think and behave defensively. These same subjects would often claim their belief in open and honest conversation, in taking responsibility, and in productive action.
Argyris felt that productive work and management came only when the espoused theory and the theory-in-use were aligned…when what people said and what people did made sense together.
This theory is particularly useful for organizations driven by mission (like nonprofit arts and culture), especially if we change the word ”theory” to the word ”mission.” Every nonprofit has a stated or espoused mission. These are the statements (official or otherwise) they say out loud to donors, to each other, to constituents, that define what they believe. Every nonprofit also has a trail of evidence — the actions and choices they have made over time — that either matches their stated mission or that doesn’t.
It can be an extremely useful exercise for managers and board members to call this question forward from time to time: is our ”espoused mission” consistent with our ”mission-in-use”? Or another way to ask the same question: ”if a reasonable stranger looked at our actions, what would they infer our mission to be?”
I’ve known many nonprofits that have asked that question and have been disturbed and transformed by the answer.
In a similar vein, I am reminded of an anecdote that Malcolm Gladwell, author of “Blink” and “The Tipping Point,” told two weeks ago at the Americans for the Arts conference in Austin, Texas. He described how the process of making people articulate the reasons for their choices seems to have the ability at times to alter those decisions, and sometimes in a way that has negative or even disastrous outcomes. (See “Blink” for a more detailed description of this phenomenon–my summation does not do it justice.) This seems to me to be another example of the disconnect between what we say we do or like and the unspoken reality of our actual preferences.
The stories that you might have about the changes nonprofits made by asking the question, ”how does our stated intent differ from our actions” would be fruitful and interesting and informative. Can I interest you in sharing this? (And can you do this without breaking confidences or other agreements?)
NOTE FROM ANDREW: Sorry, can’t share specifics.